Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Getting back to AGW nonsense itself, we see that inferential techniques of past measurement of temperature are inaccurate and unreliable, especially as we attempt to predict future changes in temperature to 1 degree precision.
If the inferential techniques are inexact, the whole house of cards comes crashing down. You cannot establish trends without a baseline. And the baseline doesn't exist if the inferential techniques that provide it are unreliable. Which we see they are.
Post the actual article, and not a blog whose source links are broken.
You cannot escape it by retreating to an ivory tower that is divorced from politics. An ivory tower, by the way, that I pay for. Most oceanographers are effectively employed by the State, correct? Hiding in their left wing universities suckling at the public teet. Oceanographers are in large part, public welfare recipients, correct? They basically have no job, other than generating hysteria to keep the funds a flowin'.
The gall you have is shocking. My god (FSM) are you not sucking on the teet of those who provide you with the science and technology that sustains your life that you do not contribute to in any meaningful way? Is that not what society is about in the first place? Christ, these scientists ultimately protect YOU and provide for YOU. The ones yammering about climate change. The ones yammering about antibiotic resistance. The ones yammering about clean water. It's all social welfare in one way or another.
The point isn't what the goals are. They happen to be the usual grab bag of Marxism, collectivism, statism, and leftism, with a dollop of political correctness and social engineering. But the point is: there are indeed goals, and they are political goals. And climate science is being used as a battering ram to achieve those political goals.
It's not about science or truth. It's about the goals.
The same thing happened when liberals ruined our country's public education system beginning 5 decades ago... intentionally. The goals were equal outcomes, and therefore "social cooperation," and "social cohesion." Of course none of that happened, and we now have a populace of at least two generations that lack both knowledge and critical thinking skills.
The gall you have is shocking. My god (FSM) are you not sucking on the teet of those who provide you with the science and technology that sustains your life that you do not contribute to in any meaningful way? Is that not what society is about in the first place? Christ, these scientists ultimately protect YOU and provide for YOU. The ones yammering about climate change. The ones yammering about antibiotic resistance. The ones yammering about clean water. It's all social welfare in one way or another.
I am not condemning science or scientists at large. I am specifically referring to a particular welfare class of scientists: climate scientists. They are on the cutting edge of "publish or perish" at the moment, bring new creativity to the art of public research teet suckling. These scientists would be totally unemployed if it weren't for tax dollars funding their intentional madness. They are parasitic and produce nothing, but are really good political barnacles.
Do you think this says something about atmospheric CO2 isotopes? It is about sediment. You do know there is no sediment layer in the atmosphere right?
Do you think this some how discounts the entire theory of ACC which btw, is not mentioned once in this article as it is solely about paleoclimatology? Is your point that climatology as a science is constantly updating the theories with new information. Good job genius, I have said that maybe a hundred times in this thread alone. It is part of what makes a theory a theory.
The same thing happened when liberals ruined our country's public education system beginning 5 decades ago... intentionally. The goals were equal outcomes, and therefore "social cooperation," and "social cohesion." Of course none of that happened, and we now have a populace of at least two generations that lack both knowledge and critical thinking skills.
ROFLMAO!! You posted a link to your own post as if it were evidence!
Speak for yourself with your dumbed down education. My students take advanced classes like multivariable calculus (did you take MV calc in high school?), are finalists in ISEF, and are actually taking their science knowledge to schools from the IL to USNA.
Do you think this says something about atmospheric CO2 isotopes? It is about sediment. You do know there is no sediment layer in the atmosphere right?
Do you think this some how discounts the entire theory of ACC which btw, is not mentioned once in this article as it is solely about paleoclimatology? Is your point that climatology as a science is constantly updating the theories with new information. Good job genius, I have said that maybe a hundred times in this thread alone. It is part of what makes a theory a theory.
Yes, the only problem is often the updates in the field of climate science completely nullify earlier theories. Why, because climate science is still in its infancy, and it's political proponents surmise and hypothesize a lot, but actually know very little. That is why it is so important that we let the climate scientists blather and bluster to their heart's content, but ignore them functionally and keep on keeping on with respect to fossil fuel exploitation.
And it appears that with the new President and administration in charge of all this, we are going to actually move forward rapidly with exploitation of fossil fuels. Keystone and NDAP seem to be moving in the right direction. I think that's a good thing and I find it personally very gratifying. Reason can Trump Envirofascism. That was not happening under Obama and would not have happened under the Vapid Biddy.
We are on a good trajectory, even with the totalitarian SJW IPCC Sustainable Goals threatening us from the sidelines.
Yes, the only problem is often the updates in the field of climate science completely nullify earlier theories.
Bull****. You just WANT it to, because of your belief system.
You stated these:
"It really does not matter if AGW is true or false. Freedom and liberty are more important than AGW, even if it means the planet will cease to exist."
"However, we must always remember what comes first: freedom, individualism, Capitalism"
So since you think a particular branch of science is a threat to capitalism, you reject it regardless of whether or not it is correct.
Therefore you are irrationally incapable of speaking about the science.
Stop pretending.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
